Come now Chico, don't you think it a little lame to justify the usage of the royal "We" after only commenting on the first four minutes of a thirty minute video?
Change the "we" to "I" if you'd like. It makes no difference, because the arguments still stand. Address the arguments, please.
By the way, I did comment on the entire video. You did read my third post on the William Brown drivel, right?
_________________ It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.
Change the "we" to "I" if you'd like. It makes no difference, because the arguments still stand. Address the arguments, please.
By the way, I did comment on the entire video. You did read my third post on the William Brown drivel, right?
I'm sure they do and I'm aware that you commented on the entire video, which prompts me to ask you if even read my response to it, because if you had you would have read "Before I address this post Chico, for reasons of clarity could you please list who else established this conclusion with you? Now that you have retracted your misleading royal "We" I will of course respond.
As opposed to Alex Jones/Adam Kokesh drivel, right?
_________________ Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.
As opposed to Alex Jones/Adam Kokesh drivel, right?
Yes, there are relative magnitudes to the drivel factor. It would help if you would focus only on one person at a time. That is what I have tried to do in this thread, and that person is William Brown (who you introduced with your opening post). Would you please address the arguments I have made about Mr. Brown? I am still waiting to hear your counterarguments.
_________________ It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.
It would help if you would focus only on one person at a time. That is what I have tried to do in this thread, and that person is William Brown (who you introduced with your opening post).
Who are you, and what did you do with the Chico I once knew, who always encouraged topic diversity?
I don't think I could have made the title to this topic any clearer, which by definition would exclude Mr Brown from this discussion as he, unlike the Alex Jones and Adam Kokesh's of this world, isn't making a "business" from his activism. Did he ask anyone to donate to his cause, buy anything from him or even ask them to hit the "Like" button to his YouTube?
Would you please address the arguments I have made about Mr. Brown? I am still waiting to hear your counterarguments.
I think it would be more accurate to ask me for my "counter-criticism" as I see very little in the way of unbiased valid arguments in your posts Chico!
I'm beginning to suspect that cult indoctrination somehow re-routes the brain's synapses away from the areas of rational thinking and logic!
_________________ Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.
Who are you, and what did you do with the Chico I once knew, who always encouraged topic diversity?
Diversity is still welcome. As you well know, I am trying to pry a counterargument out of you by helping you focus. There is a reason why you are resisting so strongly. Perhaps you have no counterarguments?
I don't think I could have made the title to this topic any clearer, which by definition would exclude Mr Brown from this discussion as he, unlike the Alex Jones and Adam Kokesh's of this world, isn't making a "business" from his activism.
Shall we also exclude the arguments Mr. Brown made, which I have countered in this thread? If we do that, then there is no thread. Perhaps you are regretting having started it?
I think it would be more accurate to ask me for my "counter-criticism" as I see very little in the way of unbiased valid arguments in your posts Chico!
More semantics to avoid the issue. If you wish to counter my arguments by demonstrating how they are biased (and how Mr. Brown's are not), then please proceed. So far, you haven't really contributed anything related to the issues I've raised concerning Mr. Brown's logic and reasoning.
_________________ It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.
Who are you, and what did you do with the Chico I once knew, who always encouraged topic diversity?
Diversity is still welcome. As you well know, I am trying to pry a counterargument out of you by helping you focus. There is a reason why you are resisting so strongly. Perhaps you have no counterarguments?
I don't think I could have made the title to this topic any clearer, which by definition would exclude Mr Brown from this discussion as he, unlike the Alex Jones and Adam Kokesh's of this world, isn't making a "business" from his activism.
Shall we also exclude the arguments Mr. Brown made, which I have countered in this thread? If we do that, then there is no thread. Perhaps you are regretting having started it?
I think it would be more accurate to ask me for my "counter-criticism" as I see very little in the way of unbiased valid arguments in your posts Chico!
More semantics to avoid the issue. If you wish to counter my arguments by demonstrating how they are biased (and how Mr. Brown's are not), then please proceed. So far, you haven't really contributed anything related to the issues I've raised concerning Mr. Brown's logic and reasoning.
_________________ Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.
That is not the appropriate way to respond, Andy. This is.
Quote:
"A nation is strong when it does things openly, courageously, and according to the law."
That assumes the law is just and righteous. So a nation is strong when it does things openly, courageously, and according to what is just and right. The same could be said for an Internet forum.
_________________ It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.
Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:53 pm
magamud
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 10:33 pm Posts: 4156
Re: The Infotainment Business
Infotainment is all bad. Money is bad. Knowing to much is bad.
Operation Paul Revere InfoWars com Contest Video Micah Ellars
Major Props to this director. I wonder if he could have done it without money, because money is evil. God forbid if he asked for donations to make it, then his credibility would be shot to pieces.
I know im being obtuse with Andy's argument but im trying to give him some perspective to come back with a better balanced approach.
And if Andy was just playing games to get a response he wants, he still looked foolish trying to defend his arguments.
The answer is 42 Andy.
_________________ Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
I wonder if he could have done it without money, because money is evil. God forbid if he asked for donations to make it, then his credibility would be shot to pieces.
I know im being obtuse with Andy's argument but im trying to give him some perspective to come back with a better balanced approach.
I agree with your point, which is basically one of separating the message from the messenger. Any messenger can be discredited, but it does not follow that the message is therefore also discredited. It does surprise me that Andy and ULY have adopted this mindset of linking the messenger and the message, especially after going through the same thing with Zook. In their defense, and Zook's, I think we are all susceptible to making this error, especially because it is not always an error! Much of the time, we are justified in dismissing the message of a discredited messenger. We lose sight of the fact that the message was dismissible without considering the credibility of the messenger, if we have the appropriate knowledge.
_________________ It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Come now Chico, don't you think it a little lame to justify the usage of the royal "We" after only commenting on the first four minutes of a thirty minute video? 
